Ohio Supreme Court, 1950

State Ex Rel. Hough v. Municipal Court

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 22, 1950 · Weygandt, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner, Taet

91 N.E.2d 506; 153 Ohio St. 287; 153 Ohio St. (N.S.) 287; 41 Ohio Op. 287; 1950 Ohio LEXIS 472 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Scott v. Municipal Court (Ohio 1951)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

From the facts alleged in the pleadings it is apparent that the instant proceeding is an attempt to convert a proceeding in prohibition into a second proceeding on appeal. A writ of prohibition not being available as a substitute for an appeal (32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24, citing, inter alia, State, ex rel. Burtzlaff, v. Vickery et al., Judges, 121 Ohio St., 49, 166 N. E., 894, and State, ex rel. Brickell, v. Roach, Recr., 122 Ohio St., 117, 170 N. E., 866), it follows that the motion for judgment on the pleadings in the present case should *290 be, and is, sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.